From jfsiege@ilstu.edu Sun Mar 31 18:57:33 2002 Received: from mailscan5.cac.washington.edu (mailscan5.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.14]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.01) with SMTP id g312vVDN017888 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:57:31 -0800 Received: FROM mxu4.u.washington.edu BY mailscan5.cac.washington.edu ; Sun Mar 31 18:57:30 2002 -0800 Received: from merlin.ilstu.edu (merlin.ilstu.edu [138.87.4.8]) by mxu4.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.01) with ESMTP id g312vUIe009996 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:57:30 -0800 Received: from stv203f ([10.20.2.14]) by merlin.ilstu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA27811 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:57:39 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <00ac01c1d920$99142660$0e02140a@stv203f> From: "Janice Siegel" To: References: <003b01c1d927$861416e0$e417b6c7@pavilion> Subject: Re: Worst neologism ever? Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:57:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 it's different in the same way that infanticide is different from murder (is there a specific word for killing an adolescent?), but even more specifically. The official charge and punishment on the books might be similar, but the moral connotations are different. Of course, the distinction between pedophile and ephebophile, or whatever, is one between degrees of innocence of the victim - all are children, but I couldn't suggest which crime is lesser. They are equally horrific, but for different reasons because of the state of development of the child thus violated. Janice Siegel Assistant Professor of Classics Illinois State University Department of Foreign Languages Box 4300 Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 office phone: 309-438-3583 cell phone: 309-287-3189 fax: 309-438-8038 jfsiege@ilstu.edu http://lilt.ilstu.edu/drjclassics http://lilt.ilstu.edu/drjclassics2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "GMOGRADY48" To: Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 9:47 PM Subject: Re: Worst neologism ever? > I'm afraid I've heard ephebophile in this very context a number of times > over past years. I'm not sure what defense it is that one goes for fourteen > year olds rather than four year olds, and anyhow in the local (Northern > California cases) with which I have some familiarity the operative factors > have been access and a willingness to exercise a warped sense of power > rather than age or even gender. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Lupher" > To: > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 4:57 PM > Subject: Re: Worst neologism ever? > > > > Michael Hendry wrote: > > >"*Word of the Week* On *Meet the Press*, Father Donald Cozzens, author > of > > >The Changing Face of the Priesthood, clarified the categorization of > priests > > >accused of molesting young parishioners. Only one-third are pedophiles. > The > > >rest are *paedophiles*. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-adolescents; > > >*paedophiles* are attracted to adolescents." > > > > > >This has to be the most confusing nomenclature since "oral-aural > > >communication". Some pundits have started using "ephebophile" for those > who > > >lust after adolescents, which is less confusing and has a good classical > > >pedigree. > > > > Is there any indication that Fr. Cozzens was deriving this daffy > > distinction from some other source, or is it his own deeply confused > > "contribution" to the language? > > > > By the way, if one wanted to create a fancy archaeoneologism for > > "foot-fetishist," would "podophile" serve? > > > > Further by the way, I have never heard "ephebophile" before. Thanks > > (I guess). And I rather like what I take to be its inevitable antonym, > > for someone who can't stand teenagers must be an "ephebophobe." It has a > > nice ring to it, don't you think? I plan to try it out on my household > > ephebes this evening. > > > > David Lupher > > Classics Dept. > > Univ. of Puget Sound > > > > > > > > > .